Transcript Introduction (Ch. 1)

Development of
learner language
(Ch. 6)
Understanding SLA
Lourdes Ortega (2009)
www.routledge.com/cw/ortega
Published by Routledge © 2009 Mark Sawyer
Two approaches to the study
of learner language:
General Cognitive & Formal Linguistic (6.1)
Interlanguage (IL)(Selinker, 1972)
language system that learner constructs
at each point in development
 Formal approach



Tenets: (specific) nativism, modularity
Emphasis: competence (representation)
Cognitive approach

Emphasis: development, performance
Interlanguage: More than the
sum of target input & L1 (6.2)
IL representations…
1. different from L2 input
2. different from L1 representations
3. similar to children’s developing L1
Cognitivist explanations for the
development of learner language (6.3)

Operating Principles (Slobin, 1973)


Input processing theory (VanPatten, 2002)


e.g. pay attention to ends of words
e.g. process content words first
Usage-based emergentist theories




Grammar is inductive, experience-driven
Input salience & frequency explain dev.
Variability has crucial role
Multiple interacting forces must be explained
Formula-based learning:
The stuff of acquisition (6.4)

Formulas


“How do you do dese?”
Low-scope patterns





“How do you do dese in English?”
Construction or schemata
“How do you make the flower?”
“How does this color is?”
Frequency, distribution, context implicitly
encoded from input (Nick Ellis, 2008)
4 interlanguage processes (6.5)

Simplification


Overgeneralization


Esp. morphology, e.g. –ing, –ed
Restructuring


e.g. one form/one meaning
e.g. soshitara, kamoshirenai
U-shaped behavior

e.g. breken/break (intermediates worst)
Interlanguage processes at
work: Ge’s DA (6.6)
Use of definite article (da) (Huebner, 1983)

Initially, underuse was often accurate

Later, pervasive overgeneralization (flooding)

Finally, restructuring toward L2 target
Good example of U-shaped behavior
Also, variability within systematicity




Accuracy: Non-linear development
Rate: uneven pace
Development as variability-in-systematicity:
The case of Jorge’s negation (6.7)
Age 12 Colombian immigrant to Boston:


Stages 1 & 2 fast (1 to 2 months each)
Stages 3 & 4 slower (6 months)





At first restricted contexts, gradually spreading
1: No saw him
2: I don’t saw him
3: I will don’t see you tomorrow
4: I didn’t went to Costa Rica (Stauble,1978)
Interlanguage before Grammaticalization:
The basic variety of naturalistic learners (6.8)



Basic variety (Purdue, 1982, & Klein)

A few phrasal, semantic, pragmatic constructs

No grammaticalization (morphology, subordination)
Communicative pressure needed to
move beyond (only 66% of learners)
Discovered in 2.5-year ESF study of 40
European immigrants: 5 L1s, 5 L2s
Patterned attainment of morphological accuracy:
The case of L2 morphemes (6.9)



“Morpheme studies”: early compelling
evidence for IL developmental stages
Apply to many L1s,young/old,
instructed/naturalistic, oral/writing,
Qualifications



may not apply to real-time production
does not imply linear progression to target
order sometimes varies
More on the development of L2 morphology:
Concept-driven emergence of tense & aspect (6.10)

3 Stage-wise strategies for time reference


Basic form/meaning pairings earlier:


(1) pragmatic > (2) lexical > (3) morphological
pres prog > simple past > pres perf > past perf
Morphology first used with matching verbs:
Aspect Hypothesis (Andersen & Shirai)

e.g. “Durative” –ing with activities (walk)
Development of syntax: Markedness &
the acquisition of L2 relativization (6.11)
Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy (NPAH)
(Keenan & Comrie, 1977)
 6 types of relative clauses (RCs):




Subject, DO, IO, PrepO, Gen, CompO
S most accessible, common, unmarked
S first learned in L2 (not only English)
NPAH most robust of non-UG principles
A last example of systematicity:
Cumulative sequences of word order (6.12)

5 stages based on 2 strategies (COS,IFS)


Emergence in use by L2 German immigrants:
Meisel, Clahsen, Pienemann’s ZISA Project
Clahsen later pursued in L1

Pienemann pursued in L2 as Processibility theory
Fossilization, or when L2 development
comes to a stop (but does it?) (6.13)
1.
e.g. Schumann’s Alberto, Lardiere’s
Patty, Han’s Geng & Fong
Problems with concept
Very hard to conclusively demonstrate
2.
Hard to verify optimal learning conditions


3.

No consensus on cause(s)
2 meanings: premature vs inevitable
What is the value of grammar instruction?
The question of the interface (6.14)




No interface: Krashen, some UG
modularists (e.g. Schwartz)
Strong interface: skill learning theorists,
emergentists (e.g. N. Ellis, Robinson)
Weak interface: interactionists (e.g. Long)
Instruction works (Norris & Ortega, 2000)
Instruction, development, &
learner readiness (6.15)




Teachability requires learner readiness ()
Word order stages most inviolable ()
Relative clauses may benefit from
instruction skipping stages ()
Grammatical morphemes unconstrained
Advantage of grammar instruction:
Accuracy & rate of learning (6.16)
Instructed learners consistently faster &
more accurate than uninstructed ones
 Syntax


word order, relative clauses
Morphology

–ed
The future of interlanguage?
(6.17)

Teleological view of IL as development
toward a NL target is problematic


monolingual NS as yardstick of success
(Sridhar, Seidlhofer, Cook, Klein)
metaphor of developmental ladder, rather
than dynamic self-organizing system
(Larsen-Freeman)